The Supreme Court Limbers Up to Aid and Abet Trump’s Coup

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how the U.S. Supreme Court is readying itself to declare Trump the winner of the election. Professor Buchanan points out that no court acting in good faith would apply the text of the Constitution or existing Supreme Court precedents in a way that would allow any of this scheme to see the light of day, but based on what Justice Kavanaugh has written and what Justice Gorsuch strongly suggests, the Court might not even have that minimum amount of good faith.

Read More

If the Challengers Prevail on the Merits of the ACA California v. Texas Case, What is the Appropriate Remedy and What Effect Should the Ruling Have on the Entirety of the ACA? Part Four in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this fourth of a series of columns examining the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider what the appropriate remedy should be if the challengers prevail on the merits of the case. The authors explain why enjoining the 2017 amendment, which zeroed out the potential tax penalty for failure to maintain the specified health insurance coverage, is a more appropriate remedy than striking down the entire ACA.

Read More

The U.S. Supreme Court Cannot Determine the Election Result

AUSTIN SARAT, DANIEL B. EDELMAN

Amherst College Associate Provost Austin Sarat and attorney Daniel B. Edelman argue that there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to prevent governors from certifying slates of electors that actually reflect the vote of the people in their states. Sarat and Edelman explain why Bush v Gore is both inapplicable, and by its own terms, never supposed to be used as precedent.

Read More

Stockdale v. Helper

Docket: 20-5269

Opinion Date: October 30, 2020

Judge: Jeffrey S. Sutton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law, Legal Ethics

Williamson County District Attorney Helper told other officials that she distrusted Fairview Police officers Stockdale and Dunning and that she would not “take their cases.” Helper wrote to the city manager (Collins): “per our discussion, this Office has concerns about reports initiated/investigated solely by” Dunning or Stockdale and that defense counsel would be entitled to a copy of an earlier investigation report concerning the officers. Helper stated, “[w]ithout independent corroboration from another law enforcement officer and/or independent witness, the[ir] testimony . . . may be impeached.” Collins disputed Helper’s assessment but Helper refused to back down. Collins fired the officers, explaining the email provided the “sole reason.” Stockdale and Dunning sued. They settled their claims against the city, leaving a First Amendment claim and state law claims against Helper. The district court denied Helper’s claim of absolute immunity and her claim for qualified immunity from the federal First Amendment retaliation claim. It also denied her summary judgment with respect to state law claims for official oppression and tortious interference with a business relationship. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part. Because Helper’s actions were not closely tied to the judicial process, absolute immunity does not apply; because her conduct did not violate any clearly established law, qualified immunity protects her.

Bribiesca v. Barr

Docket: 18-3948

Opinion Date: October 30, 2020

Judge: Raymond M. Kethledge

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

Morales became a lawful U.S. permanent resident in 2001. In 2006 she traveled to Guadalajara and stayed for several months. She flew to Tijuana and called her cousin, Guadalupe, a U.S. citizen living in California. Guadalupe agreed to pick Morales up in Tijuana. Guadalupe arrived with her boyfriend, Ruiz, a U.S. citizen, and a Los Angeles police officer. Morales was with her cousin Alisa and Alisa’s sons. Jorge, age five, was to travel to Los Angeles. Alisa gave Morales an envelope with a birth certificate inside. Morales claims she never examined it. At the border, Customs Officers determined the identities and citizenship of the three adults. Guadalupe said the boy was her cousin and presented a birth certificate, which had been issued in California for Jonathan Clemente. Officer Banuelos testified later that Morales had “insist[ed] that the birth certificate belonged to the child” and that the four had traveled from Los Angeles and back together; “I couldn’t get a straight answer" concerning the parents. Jorge spoke no English and stated that his name was Jorge Navarro. Another officer completed an “I-213” form, indicating that Morales had admitted that she had obtained a fraudulent birth certificate and attempted to smuggle Jorge into the U.S. Morales was charged as ineligible for admission, having knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided an undocumented alien, to enter or try to enter the U.S, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). An IJ found that the officers’ testimony was credible, that Morales’s testimony was not, and that Morales was removable “by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence.” The BIA dismissed her appeal. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence.